Is there such a character? I’m not certain. Over a dozen novels into my career I’m just now learning about archetypes, master plots, etc.
Over the last few months or so, I’ve had some interesting conversations with various writer friends about heroines. Some of them write strong heroines, some write kick-ass heroines, others write heroines with less obvious strength. Each of them had various concerns about how their characters were perceived.
The kick-ass heroine has received much press of late, while the “weaker” heroines are used to getting a few knocks. But there are quite a few bestselling authors whose books feature heroines who aren’t remarkably strong or kick ass. These heroines aren’t Too Stupid To Live, they’re simply not… much. When the story is over and the book is closed, it’s the heroes who linger in the reader’s minds and are discussed with affection.
Mind you, I’m not talking about bad stories with abusive men and women too weak to run like hell. I’m talking about women whose contributions to the story are much smaller than their hero’s. Often they’re paired with the ultra-alpha male, the hero who is borderline non-heroic. These heroines have a quieter strength that is most often displayed in their dealings with the hero. They don’t cower in the face of a man almost everyone else in the book fears a little bit and they are the hero’s only weakness.
As part of a group discussion on promotion (should I? shouldn’t I?), the “So-and-so author does no promotion, writes one book a year, has no website, and her books sell like crazy” point was brought up. Just for fun, we tried to find a common denominator. What similarities did these writers and their books have, if any?
Surprisingly, in this discussion, all of the writers who had been listed as an example of the “no-promo, hot-seller” rule wrote books which featured ultra-alpha heroes and heroines who weren’t exceptionally remarkable. I’m sure examples of the “no-promo, hot-seller, kick-ass heroine” variety exist and there are other factors contributing to the books’ success — the writer is skilled, the plot strong, the romance fulfilling, etc. An author’s books become popular because they’re good and readers like them. But we found it notable that for all the lauding of the kick-ass heroine, the beta heroine (?) is alive and well and cashing checks at the bank.
So we kept talking. One friend thought maybe urban fantasy would be a better fit for her, since readers of that genre seem to love the kick-ass heroine. She didn’t think her kick-ass heroines were doing so well in romance. On the other hand, another friend was lamenting a review where the reviewer felt her heroine was not strong enough, although not in a TSTL way. In her book, the hero is the star of the show and ya know… her books are selling really well.
What’s my point? Is there one? I’m not making a generalization about one selling better than the other or that one is a better read than the other. And it makes sense that we don’t feel compelled to talk about heroines we didn’t find especially memorable (Although I vaguely remember a heated discussion at AAR about the BDB series being insulting and demeaning to women because the heroines are overshadowed by the males. wish I could find the link. It was a blog-city comment thread if I remember correctly.) Obviously, the BDB sells like mad, so the H/h dynamic isn’t hurting sales at all.
My friend suggested this point: Do heroines really have to be kick-ass or just not stupid? And while I’m not really talking about kick-ass vs. non-kick-ass, the “just not stupid” part fits. If the hero’s running the show, the heroine is just along for the ride, and she doesn’t do anything stupid to make you pull out your hair, is there anything to lament or chastise? Might not be your cuppa tea, but still a good book? What do you think?
Is the hero really running the show, though? Sure, his name’s on the theater and all over the playbill, but when the heroine says “this displeases me,” doesn’t “this,” 9 times out of 10, get changed?
I happen to like the contrast between kick-ass hero and gentler heroine. He learns from her to be a little softer sometimes, she learns from him to have more of a spine… Awwww.
Then again, I also like kick-ass from both sides, when the sparks fly all the time.
When I find the hero more memorable (which is most of the time), I assume it’s because as a reader, I’m just more interested in men, not that the heroine is less well developed or a placeholder. When I’m chatting with my gal pals, we talk about real-life men far more than real-life women, and not because we don’t know any awesome, interesting, inspiring women to talk about, but because men are from freakin’ Mars and we want to dissect the aliens. Why should fictional characters be any different?
by Kerry Allen September 10th, 2007 at 6:21 am“because men are from freakin’ Mars and we want to dissect the aliens.”
by Bernita September 10th, 2007 at 7:25 amOh, yes! Kerry makes an excellent point.
Women in the fictional case, are more like channels and interpreters of these fascinating creatures and we value their insights..
I agree, I think it isn’t so much the heroines as a softer heroine only makes the super-alpha hero extra super-alpha.
I don’t dismiss my heroines though. I love heroines, and my favorite books stick with me because of the dynamic between hero and heroine. The ones that are “all alpha male,” don’t interest me as much as ones where the dynamic is less predictable.
In my latest book, I’ve got a kick-butt heroine. She’s hard, she’s strong, and she’s got a lot to learn in the course of the book that the hero has to teach her. That said, she also isn’t abrasive.
I have heard rumblings that tough is okay, but our heroines shouldn’t act like thugs with foul mouths.
Maybe that is part of the problem. Could it be a backlash against “bitchy” heroines?
Chessie
by Chessie September 10th, 2007 at 8:14 amI’ve often thought that for certain authors, their ability to write an amazing hero is their ticket to the gravy train. And it is, in fact, enough for the heroine to simply show up and not be an idiot.
by Ann Aguirre September 10th, 2007 at 9:31 amIs the hero really running the show, though? Sure, his name’s on the theater and all over the playbill, but when the heroine says “this displeases me,” doesn’t “this,” 9 times out of 10, get changed?
And isn’t that the same description of the best BDSM? It’s not the dominant who’s in charge. It’s the submissive, because he/she is the one able to put a stop to a sexual encounter with a single word, and is only following the dominant’s orders because he/she wants to. (The very definition of Laura Reese’s classic TOPPING FROM BELOW.) So perhaps the softer heroines are actually running the show as well.
by Cindy Rio September 10th, 2007 at 9:47 amI can’t disagree with your points Sylvia. Probably because I think we’ve had this conversation as well…LOL,
Kerry, I’m interested in men as well, love ‘em in fact..but for me when I read, it’s for the heroine. I love a kick-ass heroine, and cant’ stand reading any book where the heroine is just a background noise. That’s probably why I’ve moved over to urban fantasy and don’t read much romance anymore.
by Vivi Anna September 10th, 2007 at 10:45 am“Background noise?” Vivi…don’t make me have to pimp slap you.
As for the beta heroine thing. Hmmm. I think folks get too caught up in what’s Beta, what’s Alpha. To me, Alpha men are the only way I wanna fly in real life and in my fiction. But, Alpha doesn’t mean dude has to have the heroine in a choke hold, figuratively or in actuality. An Alpha man knows how to treat his woman in and out of bed, and this, to me, means making sure her needs are met. In all ways. That is sexy as hell. A man strutting around beating his chest going straight caveman, doesn’t float my boat. A man who knows his way around a woman’s body as well as around the trashcan to take it out on the curb for collection, yeah…I’m feelin’ him~
~K
by Kimberly Kaye Terry September 10th, 2007 at 2:48 pmFrankly I’m not all that interested in men with regards to what they do, why, nor how they think; so out of personal preference, no I wouldn’t choose a book that lacked a strong female lead. But that’s just me, obviously there are plenty of readers who enjoy stories featuring male leads and women in supporting roles.
by catherine September 10th, 2007 at 4:27 pmWow, what a great discussion.
I like different kinds of characters and always get a bit annoyed when it seems this or that fad is trying to push out some particular type. Even a character type which doesn’t appeal to me personally (Woodiwiss’s Shanna, anyone?
) still adds variety to the genre and serves it by keeping things interesting.
A heroine I wouldn’t want to have as a friend doesn’t usually appeal to me as a reader. I just want to smack the snooty bitch types and toss them at the villain — the hero deserves someone better.
And the ones who are just bound and determined not to do anything the hero tells them, just to “show him” he can’t boss them around? You know, the ones who’d walk off a cliff if he told them not to? To me, that’s edging toward Too Stupid To Live, no matter how intelligent the writer’s trying to convince me she is, not only for the obvious reasons but also because she’s defeating her own purpose by making herself look like an idiot in front of this guy she’s trying to show up. Brilliant. :/ Again, keep her away from the hero; I don’t want to see her breeding and passing on those Stupid genes.
An alpha heroine who’s actually competent, and who behaves like a reasonable human being around the hero (or at least makes mistakes that don’t make me want to kick her) is fine and can be fun to watch.
But a beta heroine who’s not TSTL can have a really great story. One kind I like which I’ve never seen much of is the heroine who does start out painfully ignorant, or as a doormat, or too weak to leave an abusive man or whatever, but who learns and grows over the course of the story and turns into someone strong. Not that she transforms into Lara Croft or anything, but say, goes from being a quiet little punching bag to a quiet but strong woman who doesn’t bluster or kick butt, but can and does stand up for herself by the end.
Kerry — we want to dissect the aliens ROFL! Yeah, that’s part of it, definitely.
Cindy — And isn’t that the same description of the best BDSM? It’s not the dominant who’s in charge. Yes, exactly. [nod] It’s all about the sub when you get right down to it. The dom is responsible for the sub’s well-being, and that includes his or her pleasure.
KK — As for the beta heroine thing. Hmmm. I think folks get too caught up in what’s Beta, what’s Alpha. That’d be another interesting discussion, actually. [nod] If people have different definitions of what’s alpha and what’s beta, then it’s hard to have any kind of productive discussion which rests on those terms.
Angie
by Angie September 10th, 2007 at 5:23 pmAs long as she’s not TSTL I really don’t care if she’s kick-ass, beta or bitchy. Bring her on!
by Kalen Hughes September 10th, 2007 at 6:34 pmAngie,
I suspect the heroines who start out ignorant and then undergo character growth are rare because those books are rejected. (At least, I have two friends who wrote novels like that, both which I really liked, but which were unanimously rejected with comments on how they needed to make their heroines stronger.) Perhaps the editors are smart and most readers today simply don’t want to wait for growth to occur…
Selene
by Selene September 11th, 2007 at 2:23 amSelene — Maybe the editors didn’t bother reading far enough along to see that the heroine became stronger? Although one would think that info would’ve been mentioned in the proposal.
Or maybe there are a lot of other readers like you and me but the editors don’t believe it. Like all the cookie companies that told Mrs. Fields her cookies would never sell “because Americans like crunchy cookies.” So said the experts. [wry smile]
And for that matter, I like heroes like that too. A guy who starts out hesitant or shy or clumsy or whatever, but then grows into a strong, admirable man is much more attractive to me than any chest-beating caveman type. You don’t see those guys very often either, though. :/
Angie
by Angie September 11th, 2007 at 1:56 pmmy post had disappeared
woman dont hve to be a warrior but i dont like one who fainted all the time
by Anonymous September 12th, 2007 at 12:22 amAngie,
They did indeed both make it very clear, and both got a few hits from editors/agents who read the full and said to resubmit if they could make revisions that made the heroine stronger right from the outset. One of my friends is working on that right now, seeing if she can get some balance between how she likes the book and how the agent wants it. The other has put her book under the bed and is working on something new.
Selene
by Selene September 12th, 2007 at 2:35 amGreat post, Sylvia.
I, personally, like strong heroines. But by “strong” I don’t necessarily mean kick-ass. Four of my first six heroines were “kick-ass”–in law enforcement, able to take down bad guys, shoot a gun, etc. One who wasn’t was a prosecutor–tough, smart, capable, but not necessarily able to kick-butt.
It’s interesting for me to write different characters. I don’t want to write the same character over and over again. In my upcoming book, I have my first heroine who is not in law enforcement in any way, shape or form. She’s a former stripper turned urban club owner. It was hard in many ways because I WANTED her to do things, but that WOULD have made her TSTL, which is a pet peeve of mine. But she stayed in character and was able to do things that fit with her character, and still keeping her smart and a strong leading role, even without kicking butt.
I think Jayne Ann Krentz and Julie Garwood are really great at writing the “gentler” heroine–but their heroines are also usually very likeable and smart.
by Allison Brennan September 12th, 2007 at 1:56 pmAlpha, Beta, Strong, Weak???? I like to forget the labels and just describe it besides my interpretation of the meanings might not be the same as someone else’s. I like a guy that knows how to take care of his lady in a respectful manner and does so. The lady should be worthy of that respect. She doesn’t have to be a strong personality necessarily but she should be intelligent and assertive if needed. The guy doesn’t need to bow to her every whim but at least consider her suggestions and ideas. I don’t like a guy who’s wrapped around the lady’s little finger because that shows a weakness in him. Showing a character’s growth is definitely a good thing as we are all learning and growing as we go through life - this makes the characters more real when they aren’t perfect. Submissive doesn’t mean being a doormat but the man should be taking the lead and watching out for his lady especially when she can’t for some reason. A daring rescue or two by the hero especially for the initial meeting makes a great story.
An Avid Reader
by Melissa Meeks September 12th, 2007 at 3:04 pmI don’t worry too much about alpha and beta and gamma and all the rest. My qualifications are simple: a heroine has to be sympathetic. I have to care about her and relate to her in some way. She has to have a core of strength and she has to have some sort of growth by the end. She doesn’t have to be kick-ass, she just has to know how to stand on her own two feet. I personally like wounded heroines, but not weak.
by Donna Alward September 12th, 2007 at 3:13 pmI’m new and new to reading romance books period. It’s only because my friend wrote a book and she has me reading over her second book and in the first one, Is It Really Forbidden?, the heroine is considered strong I suppose because she is in a marriage where she is being rejected by her husband but this very good looking man comes in like a knight in shining armor and wants to make her life better but she fights to stick to not cheating on her husband. It seems that both the heroine and the hero are strong in her book. I found it a very good book with a rollercoaster of emotions that left me panting. So isn’t it okay to have both characters being strong? I’m asking because I like the way she writes and not just because she’s my friend because I’m very critical about everything, but I want to be able to give her constructive criticsm. Can both really stand out? Thanks.
by Vernetta Blackwell September 12th, 2007 at 8:43 pmThe heroines I write are the soft/strong type. And that hasn’t jived with a few reviewers who only seem to like kick-ass heroines. To each his own.
But for me, the “write what you know” adage is true. A lot of my heroines are “like me”. They’re not carbon copies of each other, however, they do act in a way I think *I* would act in the same situation (or how I would have acted while falling in love). I draw on my own experiences a LOT while writing, and I’m just not a kick-ass person. lol I hate telling tele-marketers off on the phone. I hate confrontation. So in that way, I kind of weave that into my heroines as well.
Doesn’t mean they’re TSTL, but they’re not kick-ass, as a heroine like that would be so foreign to me. I am, however, exploring heroines who are more comfortable with their sexuality, like in my BEAST series. I’m not sure I can write Rambo-ette (as I’m not a big fan of the Bombshell types). I LIKE the knight in shining armor hero, and that probably stems from my own DH, who would kick anyone’s ass that dared threaten me or our children, or move heaven and earth to find us if we were separated somehow.
My DH’s personality is also woven into my heroes. He’s very alpha, so I have a great role-model. LOL
GREAT topic, Sylvia!
by Rebecca Goings September 14th, 2007 at 2:53 pmSo my take is that women come in all types and there should be space for all types of women in romance. So while I agree most with Catherine and Vivi Anna, in that I do not enjoy reading anything BUT a kick ass heroine I do understand that all women out there AREN’T kick ass and just like I need to identify with an alpha female when I read a book so do beta female readers.
But I will say THIS….In response to Chessie’s comment
“I have heard rumblings that tough is okay, but our heroines shouldn’t act like thugs with foul mouths.
Maybe that is part of the problem. Could it be a backlash against “bitchy” heroines?”
Well if that is true then that really sucks because the bitch is empowering to me (not to be confused with bitchy). And every time I turn on the television (especially reality shows) I feel like I am inundated with images of women that fit into stereotypical traditional BETA roles. I think people are less comfortable with the bitch because they are rarely exposed to her, and when they are she isn’t portrayed as strong or endearing. Instead she is seen as a villain.
by Nadia Aidan September 14th, 2007 at 9:39 pmWhich again sucks because I am from the school where strong men NEED strong women not someone who is just going to fade from the pages of the book because she is simply there to be “loved” by our strong alpha hero and that’s it!
Hell, bitches need love too!
So far, I’ve written a couple of stories with very strong heroines–strong to the point of being quite arrogant and self-centered–who met men who were just as strong in their own way. I don’t think these heroines are bitches. They’re not emotionally manipulative and they don’t try to hurt other people. They simply know what they want and are driven to get it. And readers have liked them.
But I have a couple more stories coming out that have rather intimidated, even weepy heroines. At most they have moments of being able to resist or fight the hero. But he’s the one calling the shots. It’ll be interesting to see if the same readers like those stories.
by Poison Ivy September 16th, 2007 at 9:02 pm